Windows XP on Apple

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Undertaker
  • Start date Start date
Tom said:
Leythos said:
The Windows operating system has been designed [written for] to be run
on
Intel processors only.

HUH?

Where do you get this info? My friend has an AMD processor running great
on
his XP box.
Click to expand...

That's because AMD emulates Intel. Sure, there are some OS's that make
explicit use of AMD specific instructions, but AMD was designed, in
general, to emulate Intel for application and OS compatibility.

Not quite the same as running a Motorola CPU with XP :)
Click to expand...

BAR specifically said "Intel processors only". That isn't true!
Click to expand...

He should say x386 family processors (and up), not Motorolla base CPU
 
Ad said:
Windows XP uses some features of the AMD chip.


Bloody Intel. :-)

No, I do not think my Amiga would run Xp, mind you, I would not mind
giving it a try :-)
Click to expand...


I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around when we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors
 
Ad said:
BAR said:
OK all you nit picking twits. Given the nature of the question one need
Click to expand...
not

Oh lighten up, we are only pulling your leg.
be so specific in a response. Given that the man has an Apple and wants to
install Windows - in general - not possible in the manner suggested by The
Undertaker.


To be complete with the answer, Microsoft Windows XP as published for Intel
[and Intel Compatible products, although one generally does not specifically
state AMD as anyone with one day's experience in computers knows of
Click to expand...
this]

No, which is a problem, thhis really needs to be addresed, because I get
fed up of seeing Intel all over the place, so many pro_intel companies.
Take Dell for instance, they stick with a over priced chip.
Click to expand...

Stick with the best
 
I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around when we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. The Amiga was a certain class of machine, it was
designed for a purpose and it does very well at it. The Windows machines
were also designed for a purpose and they also do very well at their
purpose.

I never bought an Amiga, but I owned every version of Commodore computer
from the PET 2001 onward until Commodore close it's doors. We use to have
the largest Commodore user group / BBS in the country (USA) at one point.
 
Leythos said:
I completely disagree. The Amiga was a certain class of machine, it was
designed for a purpose and it does very well at it. The Windows machines
were also designed for a purpose and they also do very well at their
purpose.

I never bought an Amiga, but I owned every version of Commodore computer
from the PET 2001 onward until Commodore close it's doors. We use to have
the largest Commodore user group / BBS in the country (USA) at one point.
Click to expand...

Well, you need to get some facts straight.
Back in '85-87 Amiga could do same or more than PC.
It was perfect for home or office computer. Excellent graphics, 4 channel
sound, GUI "only" OS (no DOS, but it had CLI window command,
kinda like CMD for win NT based OS)
Best of all I didn't need 800Mb of crap for OS. I could boot up Amiga from
one floppy disk (and work in "windows" environment)
and if Commodore published hardware for Amiga like IBM did, you would be
using it now and never heard of f... PC with their
issues from day one that are carried on to make them backward compatible.
 
Well, you need to get some facts straight.
Back in '85-87 Amiga could do same or more than PC.
It was perfect for home or office computer. Excellent graphics, 4 channel
sound, GUI "only" OS (no DOS, but it had CLI window command,
kinda like CMD for win NT based OS)
Best of all I didn't need 800Mb of crap for OS. I could boot up Amiga from
one floppy disk (and work in "windows" environment)
and if Commodore published hardware for Amiga like IBM did, you would be
using it now and never heard of f... PC with their
issues from day one that are carried on to make them backward compatible.
Click to expand...

The post that I replied to said:

My comments address that posting.

As for what was available BACK IN THOSE DAYS, yes, the Amiga was one heck
of a machine, and was for many years after it came out.

And some corrections - Windows didn't need 800Meg of anything to boot up
in the early days, in fact, it would install on under 100MB.

I think you misunderstand my post - I sold more Commodore computers in
those days than any other computer on the market that we had access to.
I found the B128 to be the best of many worlds of Commodore, but you don't
know many people that owned or used a B128, heck, most people don't even
know about the C128. At the same time there was an ATT 3B1 computer that
ran circles around the Amiga for imaging, but you also don't hear much
about it.

Each machine / OS has it's strength, sometimes they overlap a little,
sometimes a lot, but no one machine is good for everything.
 
Leythos said:
compatible.

The post that I replied to said:


My comments address that posting.

As for what was available BACK IN THOSE DAYS, yes, the Amiga was one heck
of a machine, and was for many years after it came out.

And some corrections - Windows didn't need 800Meg of anything to boot up
in the early days, in fact, it would install on under 100MB.
Click to expand...


Well it's still more than floppy disk size

I think you misunderstand my post - I sold more Commodore computers in
those days than any other computer on the market that we had access to.
I found the B128 to be the best of many worlds of Commodore, but you don't
know many people that owned or used a B128, heck, most people don't even
know about the C128. At the same time there was an ATT 3B1 computer that
ran circles around the Amiga for imaging, but you also don't hear much
about it.
Click to expand...

but it was 8 bit computer, where Amiga opened 16 bit computer era (along wth
PC and Apple)
Each machine / OS has it's strength, sometimes they overlap a little,
sometimes a lot, but no one machine is good for everything.
Click to expand...

Anyway, we got sh..ty PCs now, Mac with Linux OS (linux ported to Mac
hardware), Sun with Unix
 
Opinicus said:
And the rest of us are very happy that they do, thank you.
Click to expand...

They got sense,
why on earth do they want a bulked up Microsoft application slowing down
their machine?
 
zibby said:
I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around when we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors
Click to expand...
Oh yes and the P.C was going beep beep.
I remember a mate of mine got himself a nice new P.C and I went over to
see it, and laughed, he came over my place to look at my Amiga and was
gob smacked. the Amiga really was a better copmputer and I think if
commodore was still around, then there would have been a true
alternative to the P.C
 
Leythos said:
I completely disagree. The Amiga was a certain class of machine, it was
designed for a purpose and it does very well at it. The Windows machines
were also designed for a purpose and they also do very well at their
purpose.
Click to expand...

The Amiga was a far better machine than the P.C at the time, now the
P.cC wins hands down in most things.
I never bought an Amiga, but I owned every version of Commodore computer
from the PET 2001 onward until Commodore close it's doors. We use to have
the largest Commodore user group / BBS in the country (USA) at one point.
Click to expand...

If you never owned an Amiga, you do not know what you have missed.
It was a fantastic machine.
 
zibby said:
Well, you need to get some facts straight.
Back in '85-87 Amiga could do same or more than PC.
It was perfect for home or office computer. Excellent graphics, 4 channel
sound, GUI "only" OS (no DOS, but it had CLI window command,
kinda like CMD for win NT based OS)
Best of all I didn't need 800Mb of crap for OS. I could boot up Amiga from
one floppy disk (and work in "windows" environment)
and if Commodore published hardware for Amiga like IBM did, you would be
using it now and never heard of f... PC with their
issues from day one that are carried on to make them backward compatible.
Click to expand...


True, true, I t would have been so nice to have Amigas in the Office and
not P.C,s;
 
I don't believe MS has ported XP to run on Motorola or RISC processors yet -
to date only Intel, AMD and older DOS/Windows would run on Evergreen/Citrix
(can't remember too well - back in the mid 90's).

--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend!"
www.google.com

***********************************************
 
Thanks for all, didn't know my post would get so many answers!!!


BAR said:
OK all you nit picking twits. Given the nature of the question one need not
be so specific in a response. Given that the man has an Apple and wants to
install Windows - in general - not possible in the manner suggested by The
Undertaker.

To be complete with the answer, Microsoft Windows XP as published for Intel
[and Intel Compatible products, although one generally does not specifically
state AMD as anyone with one day's experience in computers knows of this]
will not install or operate in the Apple Computer.

However, it is possible to Emulate Windows on a Mac with OSX: 'Virtual PC 7'
works by emulating a Pentium-based Windows machine on your Mac. When you
launch Virtual PC, the Windows OS appears inside a window on your Mac
desktop.

You can switch back and forth between your Mac OS and Windows as easily as
you go between any two windows on your Mac desktop. Using Virtual PC, you can
copy and paste text and graphics between Mac and Windows, and drag files and
folders from one OS to the other.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/virtualpc/

This goes more to the point of solving The Undertaker's needs.
philo said:
laptop
and

no, it cannot be done.
as a few have mentioned, there are emulators available...
but they are probably expensive...and the guest OS is sure
to take a big performance hit
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bob said:
Huh?!?!! Lots of folks run MS Office on Macs.
Click to expand...

But most die hard Mac fans would not touch MS office with a barge pole.
the person down the road from me, would never have a Micirosft product
on his Mac and he been using Apple Machines since the Apple Lisa.
 
Ad said:
But most die hard Mac fans would not touch MS office with a barge pole.
the person down the road from me, would never have a Micirosft product
on his Mac and he been using Apple Machines since the Apple Lisa.
Click to expand...

and I'm sure his "hobby" costs a lot.

I just wonder why would you send more money when you can do same thing on PC
for much less $$
 
Back
Top